Disclaimer: I haven't been at my computer recently and just started looking at the rules. I haven't read the stuff elsewhere, so this may be redundant. If so I apologize.
Just a few comments and suggestions. I haven't playtested, these are just the initial impressions of a longtime 3.5 DM who had been fiddling with the rules on his own.
I had to read through the skill rules a couple times to follow what was going on. Maybe clean up the text a bit to make it easier to follow. Or maybe I'm just dense, which is a distinct possibility.
I love getting rid of skill points, I was doing something similar to Saga myself.
But one thing I was considering was a way to allow characters to get high bonuses to skills that are not "class skills". I just have a belief that if someone wants to learn about Magic, if they study it enough they can be as proficient as a wizard. Also, I was wondering if there was a way to make it a bit more multiclassing friendly. My litmus test is "fighter multiclassing into a rogue". You have to be able to go from fighter to rogue and gain proficiency in enough skills to be able to effectively find and disable traps, and maybe one other roguish like skill (use magic device, etc).
What if you did something like these mechanics. Bear with me, I learned in RPGSuperstar I am not a designer. These are similar to my house rules I have been playing with, but a little De-SAGAfied. In my gmaes I use the whole 1/2 Level +5 thing from SAGA, but I removed that from the above to help comply with the idea of backwards compatibility.
The check for trained skills is 1d20+Character Level+3+Ability Mod+Racial Mod.
The check for un-trained skills is 1d20+1/2*(Character Level+3)+Ability Mod+Racial Mod. Some skills may not be used untrained.
There is no such thing as "cross-class".
A character first chooses a number of trained skills equal to their intelligence bonus. These can be any skills from the full list of skills.
A character then chooses a number of additional trained skills based on their class. Barbarian chooses 4, Bard chooses 6, etc. These skills can only be chosen from the class skill list.
Miscellaneous stuff:
If a character's intelligence bonus increases via a permanent increase (inherent bonus, ability increase from higher level), they may choose another trained skill from the full list of skills.
I have ignored intelligence penalties, but if you wanted to include them just say that the intelligence penalty is added to the number of trained skills based on class.
Humans choose a bonus trained skill from the full list of skills.
When Multiclassing, choose a number of additional trained skills based on the new class. This number is equal to the starting skill number of that class divided by 2. So if multiclassing into Barbarian choose 2, if multiclassing into bard choose 3, etc. These skills can only be selected from the class skill list of the new class.
Prestige classes work like multiclassing.
Please utilize any, all, or none of this as you like. I am not saying it's perfect, and it definitely makes characters more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts, but that is something I decided fo allow for the same reasons they did it in SAGA.
Enjoy. If you have any questions I'll try to respond, but it may be intermittent during easter break.
I do agree that Cross-class need to go as a separate catagory, but feel that it needs to be kept as simple as possible after that point.
Unplaytested Suggestion: Each class has a list of class skills. A character can only get trained in skills on this list. Skills that can be used untrained don't get to add the level bonus.
I hold a contrary viewpoint:
I like skill points and *DON'T* like Saga skills.
This is enough of an issue for me that I won't be using Pathfinder.
Consider Grom the 19th level Barbarian:
In 3.5 Grom is no more capable at many skills than a commoner. This is actually reasonable. Skill points represent applied experience in things the character has actually done or expects to do. So in areas where the character has never dabbled, even a 19th level character should still be an utter noob.
For instance: Seamanship.
If in Grom's career he has been a landlubber, then Grom should have no more idea how to handle a ship (or even small boats bigger than a canoe) than any other 1st level commoner.
Now, at the point where Grom is about to get his 20th level, he knows that he is hunting an aquatic dragon and sees a need for this skill...
With Pathfinder he is already magically talented in Seamanship in untrained ways. And if he makes it into a trained skill, he immediately jumps to the worlds most competent mortal sailor. (He is, after all, 20th level now!)
With 3.5, Grom is free to put some skill points into Seamanship... He'll reach, maybe, rank 5. This is a very quick jump in talent in a skill, but not ridiculous.
I like that Pathfinder offers ways to add additional class skills over time. I think *that* is a good thing.
I think the Saga skill ranks thing is a very poor fit for those of us with Simulationist tendencies and a realistic view of how PCs should go about learning to do things.
Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
Slidell LA
(snip excellent example)
I think the Saga skill ranks thing is a very poor fit for those of us with Simulationist tendencies and a realistic view of how PCs should go about learning to do things.
The thing is, neither simulation-ism (sic) or realism are design goals. Ease of use and backwards compatibility are.
I would also point out that D&D never attempted to simulate the real world, but the fictional milieus of Hyboria, Lankhmar and the Dying Earth. Heroes in those stories sprout never-before-revealed skills all the time. Occasionally someone has a training montage or engages in comedy relief from screwing something up, but level gain can be considered a simulation of the training montage, and the occasional 1 on a skill check and good DM description takes care of the comedy relief.
What is this, the no-one has an avatar thread???
(snip)
The thing is, neither simulation-ism (sic) or realism are design goals. Ease of use and backwards compatibility are.I would also point out that D&D never attempted to simulate the real world, but the fictional milieus of Hyboria, Lankhmar and the Dying Earth. (snip)
The game also simulates a fictionalized quasi-medival style of play in many other settings... Like: Middle Earth, Krynn, Greyhawk, Uurth...
Uurth is my own homebrew setting. I've been at it for about 28 years now. I'm sure there are a lot of other GMs out there that are the same.
My point is that your assertions about playstyle apply to some (perhaps even many) groups. But they are *NOT* universal.
The on/off skill system of Pathfinder (and 4e) is a *very* bad fit for games where there really are lots of Expert classed merchants running around rubbing shoulders with PCs. It's a bad fit for simulating that the 5th level commoner blacksmith really is a better blacksmith (because of his intense focus on it) than the 15th level Fighter that took 2 ranks in it over his entire career (because he was otherwise focused on adventuring and warfare).
These things are *important* to us storytellers.
With 60 years of player driven history in my game, I am here to attest that it works really well for some of us.
And it's why I won't be going to 4e... and why, if Pathfinder stays with Saga skills, I won't be going to Pathfinder either.
Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
Slidell LA
The thing is, neither simulation-ism (sic) or realism are design goals. Ease of use and backwards compatibility are.
Allowing skill points would of course IMPROVE backward compatibility, not hinder it, but never mind that. I have a question that no one has been able to answer, and it's really bothering me.
As I've asked repeatedly in the other skills thread, why are the non-skill-point people so determined to present them as "wrong" playing, and to prevent everyone else from using them? If the default system were Saga-like, and skill points an option, then you wouldn't have to assign ranks if you didn't feel like it, but people who wanted to, could. You'd have your ease of use, and we'd have our "simulationism."
But no. When I propose things like that, I tend to get a bunch of posts back saying, "You're playing the wrong way!" and "My idea of D&D has no skill points and therefore yours can't either!" and "No one should be allowed to use skill points ever, and if you try to use them I'll come to your house with a troop of jackbooted thugs to stop you!"
As long as the "easy" system is a default, and assigning points is an option, then WHY is it so important to some people to stamp out that option? Is this some kind of Sunni-Shi'ite thing? Are the people who like skill complexity some kind of infidels who need to be stamped out? Or can we be allowed to co-exist?
My strong opinion is that the system is robust enough that we can all have what we want. Your easy-as-pie Saga system as the default, our skill points as an option. And I'll keep using skill points or something similar as an option, like it or not, no matter what PFRPG says. So please, can any of the more extreme anti-skill-point people explain why there can't be a skill point option sidebar to accompany the simple auto-max rules?
|
The thing is, neither simulation-ism (sic) or realism are design goals. Ease of use and backwards compatibility are.
See, I would argue that backwards compatibility (and thus perhaps keeping skill points) does nod towards simulationist and realist tendencies. I think there was some effort in 3.x to create a skill system that represents varying and somewhat realistic levels of skill.
I think the current system for skills (trained/untrained) is getting dangerous close to 4E, and as such, I don't want to see this as the final solution. I think there are other methods to simplify the skill system that retain a realistic flavor.
The on/off skill system of Pathfinder (and 4e) is a *very* bad fit for games where there really are lots of Expert classed merchants running around rubbing shoulders with PCs. It's a bad fit for simulating that the 5th level commoner blacksmith really is a better blacksmith (because of his intense focus on it) than the 15th level Fighter that took 2 ranks in it over his entire career (because he was otherwise focused on adventuring and warfare).
I second that thought. Git rid of the + / level. Skill check of "trained" Skill should be mainly based on the Ability [Str.Dex..]. Untrained should get a minus something to reflect their incompetence.
|
It seems strange to me that one of the posters said because they like skill points they will not use the PRPG. If you want to use skill points then use them.
I actually have been moving toward combining the skills in a similar way to the PRPG and I thought I was not interested in leaving skill points behind but after reading it I find that I am going to try it out with my group. I have kind of promised not to make any changes until we finish RotR and we kick off CotCT. I am considering jumping full into the PRPG when we make the change to the next AP.
It seems strange to me that one of the posters said because they like skill points they will not use the PRPG. If you want to use skill points then use them.
Then PFRPG might, pretty please, put an option for that in a sidebar. That's all we're asking. And it seems like something very few people are willing to grant; instead they just endlessly try to convince us that we're being deliberately obtuse in failing to see the perfection of Saga.
Allowing skill points would of course IMPROVE backward compatibility, not hinder it, but never mind that. I have a question that no one has been able to answer, and it's really bothering me.
As I've asked repeatedly in the other skills thread, why are the non-skill-point people so determined to present them as "wrong" playing, and to prevent everyone else from using them? If the default system were Saga-like, and skill points an option, then you wouldn't have to assign ranks if you didn't feel like it, but people who wanted to, could. You'd have your ease of use, and we'd have our "simulationism."
But no. When I propose things like that, I tend to get a bunch of posts back saying, "You're playing the wrong way!" and "My idea of D&D has no skill points and therefore yours can't either!" and "No one should be allowed to use skill points ever, and if you try to use them I'll come to your house with a troop of jackbooted thugs to stop you!"
(snip]
The good news is that the extreme anti-skill people will mostly migrate to 4e once it hits the shelves. 4e is already what they are looking for.
My concern is for how long it will take the Pathfinder development team to realize that they *need* to take the path that is not a radical departure from 3.x. SAGA skills is a radical departure. And if I've got to deal with it, I might as well buy 4e.
If Pathfinder does not adhere to 3.5 more closely than Alpha 1 does, then I don't think it's really done a good job of distinguishing itself... and it will not manage to find it's own market.
Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
Slidell LA
|
|
Kirth:
I think why we are talking up the Pathfinder system is because we want it to stay and not that we do not want you to use skill points. We want to state the benefits of this system, so that it gets a following instead of everyone having to revert back to skill points. I think for the most part the Pathfinder system is already backward compatible so I am not worried that people will not be able to use skill ranks if they want to even without a sidebar. I only do not want you to use skill ranks to the extent that I hope most people play this version of the game. If skill ranks are your thing I have no problem, but I also want to spout the merits of the Pathfinder system in hopes that more people will understand that it is not that much different and they can still enjoy it.
Consider Grom the 19th level Barbarian:In 3.5 Grom is no more capable at many skills than a commoner. This is actually reasonable. Skill points represent applied experience in things the character has actually done or expects to do. So in areas where the character has never dabbled, even a 19th level character should still be an utter noob.
For instance: Seamanship.
If in Grom's career he has been a landlubber, then Grom should have no more idea how to handle a ship (or even small boats bigger than a canoe) than any other 1st level commoner.
Now, at the point where Grom is about to get his 20th level, he knows that he is hunting an aquatic dragon and sees a need for this skill...
With Pathfinder he is already magically talented in Seamanship in untrained ways. And if he makes it into a trained skill, he immediately jumps to the worlds most competent mortal sailor. (He is, after all, 20th level now!)
With 3.5, Grom is free to put some skill points into Seamanship... He'll reach, maybe, rank 5. This is a very quick jump in talent in a skill, but not ridiculous.
I like that Pathfinder offers ways to add additional class skills over time. I think *that* is a good thing.
I think the Saga skill ranks thing is a very poor fit for those of us with Simulationist tendencies and a realistic view of how PCs should go about learning to do things.
See some of Jason's and my proposed changes in "keep skill points" thread to see if this changes your mind about the example above. Specifically taking all your skills at first level and being able to split one skill choice into two skill choices at a lesser bonus.
I think we can come up with some good rules for when you need to pick up a skill for a specific reason during the course of a campaign that does not automatically max you out.
Also I understand the way you feel when it comes to being a simulationist. I do not think the 3.5 system with skill ranks is good at that either. The character does not have to do anything in particular to get those ranks and where they place them. Player "Oh, I think I will take this skill now." GM: "Why? You have never thought about using it before and you never trained in game how to do that." See, unless you have GM house rules that you have to do some in game training to learn how to do something, which all players I know would shun, then it is a very similar problem to both systems.
I'm torn between the PFRPG system and the skill point system. The main thing I like about the new system is its ease of use, particularly as a DM. What I don't like is the ease of abuse when multi-classing.
The lack of granularity provided by skill points doesn't bother me, nor does a lack of points to be spent on 'hobby skills'. If a player wants a hobby skill I'll gladly give them a +2 bonus to it.
Also I don't see this being a problem for skill based NPC classes such as experts. They still can purchase skill focus and other +2/+2 skill boosting feats in addition to always maxing out their most useful skills. So I don't see them as really changed much.
My suggestions for revising the new system are as follows:
-Make the class-skill bonus equal to your class levels in which it is a class skill +3. Thus a rogue 1/fighter 9 would have a +4 in his rogue skills unless they were also fighter skills (like Climb or Intimidate).
-Allow new skill purchases to upgrade an existing class skill of a multi-class character into a class skill for one of their other classes. So the aforementioned Rogue 1/fighter 9 could spend his new skill award at 2nd level to make Stealth a class skill for his fighter levels as well. Thus the Rogue 1/fighter 9 could have 5 maxed out rogue skill and no new fighter skills, while a rogue 10 could have 13+Int maxed out rogue skills.
-At each new skill award a character may only purchase a new class skill from the class he is taking at that level (or use the aforementioned option to upgrade the previous class skills). He may still buy cross-class skills normally.
-Cross-class skills only upgrade to class skills if you spend a new skill allotment to upgrade them after gaining a class level in a class that has that skill as a class skill. However you may upgrade 2 cross-class skills with each such allotment. So if a fighter 9/rogue 1 purchased Stealth and Perception as cross-class fighter skills he could upgrade them at 10th level to class skills by spending his new skill allotment to upgrade. He could then have 2 maxed rogue skills and 4 maxed fighter skills (or other cross-class skills to be later upgraded).
Alternatively:
-Only consider skills a class skill for the class in which you have the most levels plus any classes you possess within 2 levels of it. Thus a rogue 5/fighter 5 would have maxed fighter and rogue skills. A rogue 1/fighter 9 would have maxed fighter skills and cross-class rogue skills. NOTE: This could have the slightly weird drawback of having skills go down when a player levels up. A rogue 5/fighter 7 has maxed rogue skills, but if he takes 1 more level of fighter his rogue skills drop to cross class skills (from +15 at 12th level to +9 at 13th level). I'm okay with this though since I believe in skill atrophy.
Just my suggestions for preventing a rogue 1/fighter 19 from running around with 18+ maxed rogue/fighter skills (which is possible under the existing PFRPG rules).
Kirth:
I think why we are talking up the Pathfinder system is because we want it to stay and not that we do not want you to use skill points. We want to state the benefits of this system, so that it gets a following instead of everyone having to revert back to skill points. I think for the most part the Pathfinder system is already backward compatible so I am not worried that people will not be able to use skill ranks if they want to even without a sidebar.
NSTR,
Great post, it clearly explains your point of view. As I've said, I'm also 100% on board with Saga-like skills being the default. However, I respectfully submit that a sidebar is needed for people like me. The reason being, if skill points default to 3.5e, then the people who choose to customize that way end up with far fewer total ranks (add the numbers; it's a not insubstantial difference) -- and customization should be an option, not a punishment.
See some of Jason's and my proposed changes in "keep skill points" thread to see if this changes your mind about the example above. Specifically taking all your skills at first level and being able to split one skill choice into two skill choices at a lesser bonus.
Yeah, those comments are the types of things I'd like to appear more clearly in the PFRPG rules. But I'd like to be able split one choice into FOUR choices at a much lesser bonus, if that's my thing. Or one and three. Or whatever. I don't want someone telling me exactly when and how many ranks I'm REQUIRED to have.
Also I understand the way you feel when it comes to being a simulationist. I do not think the 3.5 system with skill ranks is good at that either.
Interestingly, I agree; there are much better systems out there. But the 3.5 one has the benefits of wide use, backwards compaitibility, and forward compatibility as an option for the new rules -- so by those merits it's a better starting point than some of the other systems.
Wow, didn't expect that to happen from my little post. I was just providing feedback to the rules from my perspective as requested from Paizo as part of the open playtest. And I shared what has worked for me in case it was an idea they liked or may want to incorporate in part.
I guess if I had read a few of the other threads first I would have realized it would have sparked another Skill Points vs Saga Skills feud. Sorry about that. I should have tried to phrase it differently, as that was not my intent.
I guess I started this thread, I am obligated to reply.
For the record, I think skill points vs non-skill point systems both have their pros and cons.
Personally, as a DM, I'm less on the simulationist side, so my preference is Saga style. I find that I make NPC's faster when I just choose the skills that are trained, as opposed to choosing where to put skill points and whether the points are point for rank or point for 2 ranks.
As a player, I don't mind the time investment of using skill points as much. The precision targeting of skills allows a degree of customization and control over character development, as opposed to the more shotgun approach of Saga. And lets face it, it's been around since 3.0, so it has history.
But I am a bit bothered when certain skills, like Listen and Spot, can only be maxed out as class skills for certain classes, when I think those are skills all classes should be able to max. I have a problem with the 1st level rogue easily hiding from the 20th level fighter. That's why I like the way Saga includes 1/2 level to all skill checks. It kind of represents experience.
And when multiclassing, I don't like that certain key abilities that are tied to skills will not be available when a character first multiclasses into it. For example, the party fighter (say 10th level) wants to multiclass into rogue. But he has to split the 8+Int points he gets amoung all the rogue skills. He will have a very hard time searching for traps, disabling devices, opening locks, and using Magic devices to the degree that an EL appropriate adventure would require. So a lot of the key abilities a rogue should get (and possibly need) is lost.
One thing I don't like about Saga is the way a character can instantly master a skill, say when they increase their intelligence score. That sets off my realism alarm. I also don't like the way Saga handles learning new languages.
But in my game I accept the problems with Saga over the problems of skills points. But that's a personal preference, your preferences may differ.
One thought we need to keep in mind is that the mechanics for Saga may not be open. If Paizo uses a skill mechanic that is too close to Saga they may open themselves up to legal trouble. Whatever they use may have to be sufficiently different as to not step on WOTC toes. For instance, what I use at home may be too close to Saga to publish.
WOTC discussion of Saga skills is what won me over:
Stars Wars Saga Skills Preview
What is this, the no-one has an avatar thread???
LOL! I wear my lack of avatar with PRIDE! PRIDE! Mwahaha cough cough hack...ha!
Also I understand the way you feel when it comes to being a simulationist. I do not think the 3.5 system with skill ranks is good at that either. The character does not have to do anything in particular to get those ranks and where they place them. Player "Oh, I think I will take this skill now." GM: "Why? You have never thought about using it before and you never trained in game how to do that." See, unless you have GM house rules that you have to do some in game training to learn how to do something, which all players I know would shun, then it is a very similar problem to both systems.
You don't need a house rule. DMG, page 197 gives rules for requiring an instructor to learn a new feat or skill or improve an existing skill.
Why is that a wizard gets better at dodging Fireballs et al as reflected in his REF save, yet his balance remains the same? How long has your fighter been travelling on horseback and is still only as good as a 1st level peasant? You mean to say I can't intimidate a peasant even though I just kicked the butt of Orcus since I didn't even assign points to it? How come the wizard gets to increase his attack bonus even though he hasn't wielded a weapon since 1st level?Then there's the issue about the inherent levelling...
I share this point of view on the matter. Skills are mundane [non-adventuring] and should have more to do with the PC's background than day-to-day adventuring.